We've had this back-and-forth throughout all of my threads, where I'll provide information up-front and you'll carry on attacking my position as though I don't know any of what I've already posted (which I obviously do, since I posted it), at which point I'll reply to you to point out that yes, I am already aware of the information you are posting and, in fact, have already posted something to the same effect, myself.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question, given how you like to ignore entire portions of my posts in order to make posts of your own that seem engineered to make me look like an idiot, all while posting information that actually agrees with me; in fact, it really wasn't much of a question at all, given that you clearly know your stuff, you're not likely dense. Note that I'm not insinuating that you're a troll, either, just that you seem to enjoy trolling me, specifically. As for the personal attacks, I don't see you approaching other members threads the same way you approach mine, so I'm taking that personally; I apologize if you don't like the way I went about pointing that out, but it is what it is.

Hey now, I'm not devaluing anyone's opinion here, I'm just sick of the repeated implication that I haven't considered this or that piece of information, when I've clearly stated otherwise earlier in the thread. If that's not either deliberate ignorance or trolling, I'm not sure what else to call it and perhaps you should clue me in.

I've been trying not to outright ignore either you or MolaKule (or any other users, for that matter) since everyone says something useful at least once in a while (and MolaKule typically does... just not in my threads), but it's come down to either ignore the two of you or leave and, frankly, I like it here.

Some of the uses canola has seen (military service -- and not for cooking -- and as a heavy machinery lube) are much more demanding than the inside of your typical engine. These are constant-use, minimal-maintenance scenarios, which seems to coincide with my experience; this oil seemed like it was gonna last dang near forever until I stopped using it for a while.

Maybe so, but I am pretty sure these are additized oils with special anti-oxidant packages, not virgin Canola oils.

It will be interesting to see your baseline VOA, UOA's, and observation on the visual properties of this mix.

I suspect what you are now seeing is a polymerization of the Canola oil mix.

And we are still interested in the results of your experiment.

What I think is happening here Kenbro, is that when myself, EdHakett, Solarent, Nate1979 and others ask questions or present information that you have not considered, or present information in which you have a preconceived bias against, you get defensive.

What's happening, relating to your posts specifically (I'm not having these issues with any other user in this thread, but you're ignoring that I named you, specifically, in order to reflect the blame onto me), is that you're stating arguments that I've already addressed previously as though I haven't considered them already, when I clearly have since I've already addresses them. I welcome any and all opinions and new data the problem is that I'm not getting either of those from you and you're just arguing points that I've already addressed.

As an example, how many times have I mentioned that I'm using Rotella T6 for this test? How many times have I explained why I chose that oil? How many times have you parroted the fact (which I've agreed with, repeatedly, mind you) that the use of any vegetable oil requires a beefier additive package with a higher quantity of antioxidants? We've covered that several times now: that very fact played a large role in my choosing Rotella T6 for this experiment; secondarily, I chose Rotella T6 because I was already running it when I decided to start the experiment, but I could just as well have delayed the experiment for one OCI had I settled on a different oil. You're welcome to poke and prod at any part of this that you want to, I actively encourage it, but can you please try a new angle once in a while, so the debate can actually be productive?

That you keep harping on the same point about antioxidants, though I've addressed it each and every time, is precisely why I accused you of trolling my threads. If you don't like that accusation, I'm asking, as I have been, that you stop the behavior. That's all I'm after here.

That you keep harping on the same point about antioxidants, though I've addressed it each and every time, is precisely why I accused you of trolling my threads. If you don't like that accusation, I'm asking, as I have been, that you stop the behavior. That's all I'm after here.

That doesnt change the validity of the question. You cite that T6 has a lot of antioxidant. When is it the right antioxidant for the specific chemistry in canola? Will it protect those ligands against radicalization and polymerization or oxidation?

Im not sure that this has been determined yet. Sure, your initial test may be telling, but just pointing to the fact that product x has y in it doesnt mean much.

When some of the most technically proficient folks on the site ask questions and reiterate them, I wouldnt call it trolling, rather an issue of whether the scientific basis of their query has been adequately addressed. There is a benefit to such peer review, like it or not.